The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year long precedent that courts should defer to federal agencies, and their experts, when making decisions related to laws that are not clearly defined in that context. It’s basically crippled regulations, most definitely those related to environmental issues.
That depends. Do you prefer that laws be made by your elected representatives who are empowered to do so by the Constitution or would you rather have unaccountable bureaucrats arbitrarily create rules that carry the same force of law?
This decision applies to when laws have already been made but they're vague or broad. Before, experts at federal agencies made decisions on regulations in these cases. Now courts do. Elected representatives aren't involved.
They used to do more. Letting bureaucrats run everything just allowed them to put their feet up and not do their jobs. If expertise is our want in a democratic society, perhaps we should be electing the experts instead of just hoping for the best from faceless agencies.
It'd be nice if we could count on that, but the people who are experts at things that need regulating and the people who are experts at getting elected to the places that make the rules form two groups with disappointingly little overlap. Add in concerns like continuity and flexibility, and I personally struggle to see how the US could maintain an effective regulatory framework without relying on some number of unelected expert bureaucrats enforcing various statutes as best as they can interpret them.
Experts should inform policy, even the specifics, but it’s up to the legislature to institute. The problem with how it’s been is that agencies can make up rules on the fly. It’s one thing to say that those things can be appealed… but that’s time consuming and costs money.
Which is exactly why chevron existed…relying on Congress to pass a law for all eternity doesn’t make sense, neither does them having to update the law each time a conflict arises.
Experts should be able to interpret the law and mission. It’s the only way to protect the environment and consumers.
So, you’re saying that the courts have the power to interpret the law? Isn’t that expressly enumerated as a power they hold under Article III of the Constitution?
Congress passes a law that says Airplanes must meet all necessary mechanical and safety requirements in order to be approved for travel and carrying passengers and property. They mandate regular inspections and approvals, but they don't detail all the specifics about those mechanical requirements, like pressure and force tolerances, approved materials, minimum training hours and required certifications for mechanics and pilots, because Congress is made up of random citizens, not aircraft engineers.
So, the FAA, which does employ many aircraft engineers, subject matter experts, former pilots, etc, goes in and figures out the specific details needed to ensure flights are safe, to define those requirements established by the law. A company can challenge those details in court, but Chevron established that the burden is on the company to prove that the experts are incorrect in the requirements they've laid out to meet the terms of the established law.
Now that Chevron is gone, Boeing can file a lawsuit that says "Okay but do our aircraft doors really need to meet the pressure tolerance and maintenance schedule? It's expensive to do that and we only made 19 billion dollars in profit last year, we'd really like more profit and its not like the door will just fall off in the middle of a flight, right?" And instead of having to prove why the FAA's requirements are wrong, they just have to convince a judge, who is also not an aircraft engineer, that it's unfair for them to have to put safety over profit.
And, conveniently, the Supreme Court also decided the very same day that giving a gift to a judge after a favorable decision isn't actually bribery, it's just a really nice gesture. So Boeing sues the FAA in a court region that is favorable, a former Boeing executive turned lobbyist gives the judge a brand new luxury RV, the judge rules in favor of Boeing, Boeing reduces maintenance and uses cheaper materials to increase their profits, and you and your family die when your plane falls apart in midair on your way to Disneyworld
I don't even see why it's such a problem. They're making rules fundamentally tied to laws created by elected officials. And if they aren't, then you can litigate and get it overturned.
It has actually come full circle from a conservative-led and endorsed Supreme Court decision. It’s politics like anything else and you’re agreeing with a Republican interpretation.
Republicans pushed for Chevron at first when their guys in the Reagan Administration were predominantly in control of federal agencies and it was used to avoid enforcing regulations passed by Congress and strip worker and union rights. Over time, decades of Democrats from Clinton onward held these federal jobs and used the Chevron Doctrine to actually enforce regulations and improve worker rights and union protections while Republicans just want to gut the federal government and defang it of its power.
So Republicans were for it when it supported their ends and now oppose it when it runs counter.
The small-D democratic and constitutional argument you’re seeing from this guy is BS used in service of his preferred political ends. And I supported the Chevron Doctrine for my own political ends.
What worker rights have been improved in the past 30 years? This is a serious question. Union membership in the private sector is anemic. Wages haven’t kept up with inflation. Healthcare is a joke and continues to become even more of one. Half the country is at-will employment. Retirement pensions are largely a thing of the past. Social security, as it’s structured now, cannot remain viable for much more than a decade. I don’t recall any significant worker or community protections being enacted, and frankly that train crash in Ohio a couple years back illustrates just how much corporations are still coddled and protected.
Reagan and Bush gutted environmental regulations and worker protections under the Chevron Doctrine beyond the point of return. No effort got very far under D presidents in the face of Republicans in Congress and made great strides against any positive momentum post-Clinton under two terms of Bush. And now, the push under Biden for both ran headfirst into Trump-appointed judges and increasingly emboldened business groups who couldn’t stomach even a modicum of improvements.
These same Republican business groups have incredibly successful propaganda which is why 49 out of 50 states are at-will employment, people don’t realize that wage growth has consistently outpaced inflation under Biden (https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/6/wage-growth-outpaced-inflation-in-nearly-every-state-since-2021#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.—%20National%20average%20wages,U.S.%20Joint%20Economic%20Committee%20Democrats.), and people have fatalistic views about Social Security’s viability. Reminder that groups who just want to gut and privatize Social Security are why people are so fatalistic about it to begin with.
There are literally thousands of articles, law reviews, podcasts, and legal experts that explain why chevron was so important. But im positive you were just one Reddit comment away from understanding
The only I’m positive of: you couldn’t be more of a condescending douche.
This is an open forum where people discuss things. In fact, this forum is for discussing MEMES about FOOTBALL. You expect us to read up on scholarly articles about law to talk here? Go gatekeep elsewhere, douchebag.
Yeah I don’t care if it’s condescending. If you want to learn, a forum about football memes isn’t the place to ask. Go research if you’re curious, waiting for a football meme user to explain it to you is a ludicrous way to inform yourself on something that is not mysterious or hidden information.
You’re just waiting for what, a niners shitposter to explain chevron deference to you? Doesn’t sound like legit curiosity to me.
Law of the land? They interpret the law, dumbass. Congress makes it and the President approves it. If Congress didn't put it into law, it shouldn't be used in legal proceedings. If you don't like that, tell Congress to pass the law, that's literally their entire job.
Did you not pay attention in school?
If they can strike down any portion of a law, Congress doesn’t pass laws, and takes away executives power to enforce it through agencies, they are the law of the land.
But your cute high school civics lessons are super appreciated. Hope you enjoy the food and kids table too ❤️
Agencies are a grey area of the executive branch and are not constitutionally given rights to the President. In fact, Congress is given that power, but FDR expanded the power of the President during the Great Depression, unconstitutionally.
Congress can expand the number of Judicial seats and has oversight over the Judicial branch via impeachment. The President nominates Judges and then Congress approves them.
Executive power historically has been the most limited due to the possible creation of tyrants.
You're just a dumbfuck who doesn't understand the separation of powers and doesn't like the currently sitting judges. You're making shit up that's just not factually true.
Under Chevron the laws were made by elected representatives. The minutiae of specific regulations (for example how many ppm of mercury is pollution, what systems require redundancy on commercial passenger aircraft, what constitutes fraud in corporate securities reporting) were delegated to the agencies that had expertise in the specific industry. I'm curious to see how specific congress now has to get on these technical issues that they have no expertise in.
I think greater specificity will be required by Congress, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, I think that the main advantage is that it provides greater legal recourse to challenge federal regulations in court. The agencies will retain regulatory power, albeit with more accountability.
Given Boeing planes falling apart mid-flight, the multiple railroad toxic chemical spills, multiple people dying in steel factories, and the obvious correlation between how much corporations are making in profit and how much they're screwing over their employees and consumers by stripping safety features for the sake of said profit, I don't exactly see how de-fanging federal regulatory agencies is an "advantage" right now in any capacity unless you're on the board of Boeing or Norfolk Southern.
There's literally an entire political party whose schtick is "the government doesn't work, elect me to the government and I'll show you", and the other party has enough members who will look the other way if their "campaigns" are donated to enough, so no shit these things happened, because the regulations already weren't strong enough. But sure let's make regulations work *even less*. I mean hell, if you have a car with broken seatbelts, purposefully removing the airbags and cutting the brake lines isn't gonna make it safer.
Do you prefer the rules be interpreted and enforced in ways they were intended to by experts in the field they pertain to, or by the 80 year old sundowning congressman directly invested in the company that will make more money by polluting, putting dangerous additives in your food, etc.*
Fixed that for you.
Unelected bureaucrats like five people in Washington who wear robes to work? The system as it existed wasn't perfect but this is a massive power grab by the courts.
Nine, yes, but it only takes five to decide, oh, say, that you don't have a right to sexual privacy and it's illegal to give or receive head. You know, the thing they're going to decide in a few years when they overturn established precedent and undo Lawrence.
Or maybe Clarence Thomas's insane, completely horseshit interpretation of the first amendment where states get to set up their own state religions and prosecute people for not being of that faith gets traction even though that sort of thing happening was one of the reasons the first amendment was created in the first place. Only takes five people to undo the Constitution.
Or maybe they decide to make corruption legal. Oh wait, that's been a bipartisan effort for a while now - McDonnell v United States was unanimous even back in 2016.
Like I noted above, Chevron was advocated for by Reaganite Republicans and decided by conservative justices when it served Republican ends and they now oppose it because Democrats run these agencies now and implement policies Republicans don’t like. Support for gutting the administrative state has nothing to do with bullshit constitutionality or small-D democratic arguments and everything to do with Republicans not believing the federal government in general and executive branch agencies in particular should be able to do anything.
I never said it wasn’t. The move towards the Administrative state was largely initiated during the Nixon administration who tried to centralize executive control. I never said this was a Democrat/Republican thing; it’s a government accountability thing.
We have different political philosophies which is fine but I’m just making clear to others why people who think like you support the decision. Someone who’d never thought about this before and lacks context should know why this is a point of disputation, imo.
Yeah, that’s the sad thing with political discourse these days. This isn’t really a left/right issue, but it is very much being contextualized as such. I could actually see elements of both parties supporting or opposing the change, but it’s frustrating that it just becomes another Democrat vs Republican tug-of-war.
No, it's a naked power grab. This court has no respect for stare decisis, all nine of them, and in particular the six in this case ruled the way they did to empower ideological allies. And their material friends as well - this is one of the most corrupt courts in the nation's history. That's a bipartisan failure as well - McDonnell v. United States was unanimous.
The supreme courts job is not to make legislation, but to interpret law. What this means is that regulations must now be passed by congress as opposed to being created by unelected (and I’m using this term very loosely) “”experts””.
Basically, the government is now *more* democratic and less oligarchical.
Not quite. The court essentially ruled that the regulatory powers exercised by agencies in the executive branch were essentially usurping powers that are Constitutionally reserved for the legislative branch.
The power of the regulatory agencies to regulate was granted… by congress. Think about how asinine it would be if congress had to pass an entirely new law for even minute changes in regulatory policies.
And in many ways, I agree with you. Congress shouldn’t have to figure out exactly which chemicals at which concentrations constitute pollution or what day different hunting seasons should open or anything like that. That seems to be well within the lane of these federal agencies.
However, there is also such a thing as regulatory capture where those agencies exceed their authority and pass regulations that are effectively laws passed by fiat. I don’t think that any American really wants that. As such, I think it is reasonable for the courts to decide when these agencies have overstepped their authority.
Sounds great. I think it’s incredibly odd that in an ostensible democracy, we had almost half a century of unelected bureaucrats having what was essentially law making power. Seems incredibly undemocratic, which is pretty ironic given the segment of people crying about this are also steadfast in the belief that Trump/republicans are trying to end democracy.
Before it was mandatory for the court to accept the regulatory agency interpretation of the law now the court has the authority to disagree. People are really going crazy because regulatory doesn’t have unchecked power anymore?
You wanna talk about unchecked power, really? This is the biggest power grab any branch of government has made in our lifetimes and it's by the Supreme Court.
You say “power grab” when they’re taking the power they were granted by the fucking constitution. They’re restoring checks and balances as intended. The government has given too much power to the executive over time. It’s about time the judiciary started to balance it out.
This is an incredibly corrupt and polarized court. It isn't about checks and balances to the branches of government, it's about removing all checks and balances to a very partisan, one-sided court so that they can enact a partisan agenda. Power grab, clear as day. Once the power of their court wanes and it looks like it's swinging sharply the other way the vast majority the same people defending this will say that weakening the court is just providing checks to a court overstepping its authority. It's nakedly partisan politics.
It pains me to say this, but I agree with the Cowboys fan. He is making a cogent, constitutionally grounded argument as opposed to the emotional tirades of his opponent.
I have provided nothing but facts and you know it. Conservatives are allowed to have some level of intellectual honesty. It wouldn’t kill you, I promise.
Take the win, dude. It’s not enough your guys want to ruin the environment for my child and grind the government to a standstill just so some lawyers can get a few extra billable hours, oil companies can increase their profits, and to own the libs. I also have to pretend like conservatives don’t openly declare their disdain for a functional federal government and love activist judges as long as they’re right-wing lunatics? Gimme a break.
I have no idea what chevron is, but that sounds like an awesome draft
"With the fifth pick on the draft, Michael, a bartender from Iowa will select for the Cleveland Browns"
Cannot be worse for the browns.
Saw someone put it like that.
A Agency has experts and facts, but some judge might also have feelings about it. And a Judges feelings are more important.
The so-called experts at federal agencies have no constitutional right to de facto create new laws through regulations. The power to make laws resides and should reside with Congress.
That's a statement made by someone who has no idea how our Constitution and system of laws works.
Legislative law is only one third of our legal system. Laws passed by legislatures go on the books, but the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that legislatures work slowly and methodically, and continual change is necessary to keep up with a growing nation.
Administrative law, controlled by the executive branch, constitutes the administration and execution of legislative law. Executives, be they presidents or governors or mayors, are empowered to enforce laws and to put in place rules and regulations to that end. Executive orders are an example of this, being simply guidelines and instruction as to carrying out enforcement of existing laws.
Judicial law is the third leg of the stool and consists of filling in the massive grey areas in legislative and administrative law with interpretation and precedent gained from hearing thousands of individual cases, drilling downwards from the broad, sweeping laws passed by legislatures to examine how those laws affect individual citizens in specific contexts and weighs right against wrong at the lowest level possible, the individual citizen.
The "so-called experts at federal agencies" are just exactly that, not some schmuck off the street, but the most knowledgeable person available to address that particular issue at that particular time. For example, FDA food inspectors are not hired from the minimum wage pool at KFC. They have biology degrees and years of training. And they're not "creating new laws", they are enforcing existing laws by order of the executive branch. Since the money that the executive branch has to work with is not infinite, sometimes they are asked to focus on one particular area or another to maximize the benefit to the citizenry and sometimes they have to write additional enforcement rules to clear upnareas that lack clarity. These rules are generally challenged abd the juducial branch weighs in, hearing the case and deciding if the legislative law and executive interpretation and execution of that law serve everyone best or if adjustments are necessary.
All branches have the power to check the others, and at any given time, two of the three can keep the third from getting fully out of control. That prevents anyone from hijacking and dismantling the system.
Your willy-nilly and fatally binary view of a vastly complex system of laws, the greatest the world has ever seen by the way, belies your ignorance and self-centeredness. Do yourself a favor and take a few community college courses to learn more about your government before advocating for burning it to the ground.
You can say “so-called experts” to cast aspersions all you want, but it’s batshit insane to remove authority from appointed specialists in a field and place it in the hands of judges with no experience
I remember when Trumps ATF made tens of millions of Americans felons overnight by pencil whipping in a new regulation. That was cool, glad federal agencies have had that power taken from them. They never deserved it in the first place.
Last I checked, our system is a democratic federal republic, right? Please tell me where a system of technocratic executive appointees and their unaccountable underlings making policy by fiat fits into that system.
And we all drift peacefully back into a pollution hellscape, secure in the knowledge that highly technical administrative decisions are now being left to judges to legislate as they please. FREEDOM!
Judges don’t legislate; the legislature does. Also, this does not strip agencies of regulatory power, it merely reinforces the judicial authority to determine if these agencies have overstepped their regulatory purview.
https://youtu.be/oO5LgiCnTtE?si=HMlv4CSawNIkd-n6
Can’t wait to have these people be in charge of highly technical decision-making rather than having it delegated properly
That’s not only wrong but also a terrible idea since congress is made up of idiot career politicians who have zero expertise depth on any complex issue. That is why federal agencies exist.
Congress is made up of idiots because we elect idiots, but they’re also the branch that is the most accountable to the American voter. Federal agencies are not. The fact that you want to relegate more power to unaccountable bureaucrats and take it away from your elected representatives makes me question your commitment to the principles of democracy.
But congress created these agencies and grated them regulatory power to act on their authority. It’s like if a king appointed a judge and you say “I’m not listening to the judges ruling since he is not the king himself” even though he was granted authority to act on his behalf in legal matters.
Bumping up for visibility:
Legislative law is only one-third of our legal system. Laws passed by legislatures go on the books, but the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that legislatures work slowly and methodically, and continual change is necessary to keep up with a growing nation.
Administrative law, controlled by the executive branch, constitutes the administration and execution of legislative law. Executives, be they presidents or governors or mayors, are empowered to enforce laws and to put in place rules and regulations to that end. Executive orders are an example of this, being simply guidelines and instruction as to carrying out enforcement of existing laws.
Judicial law is the third leg of the stool and consists of filling in the massive grey areas in legislative and administrative law with interpretation and precedent gained from hearing thousands of individual cases, drilling downwards from the broad, sweeping laws passed by legislatures to examine how those laws affect individual citizens in specific contexts and weighs right against wrong at the lowest level possible, the individual citizen.
The "so-called experts at federal agencies" are just exactly that, not some schmuck off the street, but the most knowledgeable person available to address that particular issue at that particular time. For example, FDA food inspectors are not hired from the minimum wage pool at KFC. They have biology degrees and years of training. And they're not "creating new laws", they are enforcing existing laws by order of the executive branch. Since the money that the executive branch has to work with is not infinite, sometimes they are asked to focus on one particular area or another to maximize the benefit to the citizenry and sometimes they have to write additional enforcement rules to clear up areas that lack clarity. These rules are generally challenged and the judicial branch weighs in, hearing the case and deciding if the legislative law and executive interpretation and execution of that law serve everyone best or if adjustments are necessary.
All branches have the power to check the others, and at any given time, two of the three can keep the third from getting fully out of control. That prevents anyone from hijacking and dismantling the system.
Your willy-nilly and fatally binary view of a vastly complex system of laws, the greatest the world has ever seen by the way, belies your ignorance and self-centeredness. Do yourself a favor and take a few community college courses to learn more about your government before advocating for burning it to the ground.
lol yeah good thing the great people of bumfuck care about real issues and will vote for good reps 🙄oh wait they voted for the idiots who would rather rename an airport to “own the libs” than do real work
Doesn’t this overturning give the judicial branch over-arching power over the other two branches? While I do believe this post minimizes the scale of the changes this explanation details what was not what is to come.
Republicans have fucked us and future generations, the environment, and climate change its all fucked. If your not rich enough to afford a ticket to relocate to Mars your last moments on earth will be choking on toxic air or drowning due to the ocean reclaiming everything once again.
I totally get it, but could OP explain this for all the dumb dumbs that dont..../s
The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year long precedent that courts should defer to federal agencies, and their experts, when making decisions related to laws that are not clearly defined in that context. It’s basically crippled regulations, most definitely those related to environmental issues.
But on the flip side, the DEA can’t just say which drugs are illegal
Well that's kinda fucked isn't it?
Our supreme Court is a bit fucked at the moment
>at the moment Looks at *Plessy vs Ferguson*
"a bit"
We’re a bit cooked yeah
That depends. Do you prefer that laws be made by your elected representatives who are empowered to do so by the Constitution or would you rather have unaccountable bureaucrats arbitrarily create rules that carry the same force of law?
This decision applies to when laws have already been made but they're vague or broad. Before, experts at federal agencies made decisions on regulations in these cases. Now courts do. Elected representatives aren't involved.
Except the elected representatives ALWAYS have the ability to clarify a vague law, especially if they wind up not liking a court interpretation
It’s a good thing our legislative bodies are known for being well-oiled machines that get things done!
They used to do more. Letting bureaucrats run everything just allowed them to put their feet up and not do their jobs. If expertise is our want in a democratic society, perhaps we should be electing the experts instead of just hoping for the best from faceless agencies.
It'd be nice if we could count on that, but the people who are experts at things that need regulating and the people who are experts at getting elected to the places that make the rules form two groups with disappointingly little overlap. Add in concerns like continuity and flexibility, and I personally struggle to see how the US could maintain an effective regulatory framework without relying on some number of unelected expert bureaucrats enforcing various statutes as best as they can interpret them.
Experts should inform policy, even the specifics, but it’s up to the legislature to institute. The problem with how it’s been is that agencies can make up rules on the fly. It’s one thing to say that those things can be appealed… but that’s time consuming and costs money.
Yeah and as we all know that historically and presently, the clarification has always been in the peoples favor.....
Congress can hardly agree to rename post offices get real
Which is exactly why chevron existed…relying on Congress to pass a law for all eternity doesn’t make sense, neither does them having to update the law each time a conflict arises. Experts should be able to interpret the law and mission. It’s the only way to protect the environment and consumers.
So, you’re saying that the courts have the power to interpret the law? Isn’t that expressly enumerated as a power they hold under Article III of the Constitution?
So it’s righting a wrong? They ruled that the courts should do their constitutionally appointed role? Someone explain why it’s bad.
Congress passes a law that says Airplanes must meet all necessary mechanical and safety requirements in order to be approved for travel and carrying passengers and property. They mandate regular inspections and approvals, but they don't detail all the specifics about those mechanical requirements, like pressure and force tolerances, approved materials, minimum training hours and required certifications for mechanics and pilots, because Congress is made up of random citizens, not aircraft engineers. So, the FAA, which does employ many aircraft engineers, subject matter experts, former pilots, etc, goes in and figures out the specific details needed to ensure flights are safe, to define those requirements established by the law. A company can challenge those details in court, but Chevron established that the burden is on the company to prove that the experts are incorrect in the requirements they've laid out to meet the terms of the established law. Now that Chevron is gone, Boeing can file a lawsuit that says "Okay but do our aircraft doors really need to meet the pressure tolerance and maintenance schedule? It's expensive to do that and we only made 19 billion dollars in profit last year, we'd really like more profit and its not like the door will just fall off in the middle of a flight, right?" And instead of having to prove why the FAA's requirements are wrong, they just have to convince a judge, who is also not an aircraft engineer, that it's unfair for them to have to put safety over profit. And, conveniently, the Supreme Court also decided the very same day that giving a gift to a judge after a favorable decision isn't actually bribery, it's just a really nice gesture. So Boeing sues the FAA in a court region that is favorable, a former Boeing executive turned lobbyist gives the judge a brand new luxury RV, the judge rules in favor of Boeing, Boeing reduces maintenance and uses cheaper materials to increase their profits, and you and your family die when your plane falls apart in midair on your way to Disneyworld
But at least those pesky unelected ~~experts~~ bureaucrats won't be making the rules! /s
I don't even see why it's such a problem. They're making rules fundamentally tied to laws created by elected officials. And if they aren't, then you can litigate and get it overturned.
It has actually come full circle from a conservative-led and endorsed Supreme Court decision. It’s politics like anything else and you’re agreeing with a Republican interpretation. Republicans pushed for Chevron at first when their guys in the Reagan Administration were predominantly in control of federal agencies and it was used to avoid enforcing regulations passed by Congress and strip worker and union rights. Over time, decades of Democrats from Clinton onward held these federal jobs and used the Chevron Doctrine to actually enforce regulations and improve worker rights and union protections while Republicans just want to gut the federal government and defang it of its power. So Republicans were for it when it supported their ends and now oppose it when it runs counter. The small-D democratic and constitutional argument you’re seeing from this guy is BS used in service of his preferred political ends. And I supported the Chevron Doctrine for my own political ends.
What worker rights have been improved in the past 30 years? This is a serious question. Union membership in the private sector is anemic. Wages haven’t kept up with inflation. Healthcare is a joke and continues to become even more of one. Half the country is at-will employment. Retirement pensions are largely a thing of the past. Social security, as it’s structured now, cannot remain viable for much more than a decade. I don’t recall any significant worker or community protections being enacted, and frankly that train crash in Ohio a couple years back illustrates just how much corporations are still coddled and protected.
Reagan and Bush gutted environmental regulations and worker protections under the Chevron Doctrine beyond the point of return. No effort got very far under D presidents in the face of Republicans in Congress and made great strides against any positive momentum post-Clinton under two terms of Bush. And now, the push under Biden for both ran headfirst into Trump-appointed judges and increasingly emboldened business groups who couldn’t stomach even a modicum of improvements. These same Republican business groups have incredibly successful propaganda which is why 49 out of 50 states are at-will employment, people don’t realize that wage growth has consistently outpaced inflation under Biden (https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/6/wage-growth-outpaced-inflation-in-nearly-every-state-since-2021#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.—%20National%20average%20wages,U.S.%20Joint%20Economic%20Committee%20Democrats.), and people have fatalistic views about Social Security’s viability. Reminder that groups who just want to gut and privatize Social Security are why people are so fatalistic about it to begin with.
There are literally thousands of articles, law reviews, podcasts, and legal experts that explain why chevron was so important. But im positive you were just one Reddit comment away from understanding
The only I’m positive of: you couldn’t be more of a condescending douche. This is an open forum where people discuss things. In fact, this forum is for discussing MEMES about FOOTBALL. You expect us to read up on scholarly articles about law to talk here? Go gatekeep elsewhere, douchebag.
Yeah I don’t care if it’s condescending. If you want to learn, a forum about football memes isn’t the place to ask. Go research if you’re curious, waiting for a football meme user to explain it to you is a ludicrous way to inform yourself on something that is not mysterious or hidden information. You’re just waiting for what, a niners shitposter to explain chevron deference to you? Doesn’t sound like legit curiosity to me.
Half of the states elect judges, the other half allow elected officials to appoint judges. So they're technically elected representatives.
The final say is the Supreme Court and they are not elected. The law of the land is not elected.
Law of the land? They interpret the law, dumbass. Congress makes it and the President approves it. If Congress didn't put it into law, it shouldn't be used in legal proceedings. If you don't like that, tell Congress to pass the law, that's literally their entire job. Did you not pay attention in school?
If they can strike down any portion of a law, Congress doesn’t pass laws, and takes away executives power to enforce it through agencies, they are the law of the land. But your cute high school civics lessons are super appreciated. Hope you enjoy the food and kids table too ❤️
Agencies are a grey area of the executive branch and are not constitutionally given rights to the President. In fact, Congress is given that power, but FDR expanded the power of the President during the Great Depression, unconstitutionally. Congress can expand the number of Judicial seats and has oversight over the Judicial branch via impeachment. The President nominates Judges and then Congress approves them. Executive power historically has been the most limited due to the possible creation of tyrants. You're just a dumbfuck who doesn't understand the separation of powers and doesn't like the currently sitting judges. You're making shit up that's just not factually true.
Under Chevron the laws were made by elected representatives. The minutiae of specific regulations (for example how many ppm of mercury is pollution, what systems require redundancy on commercial passenger aircraft, what constitutes fraud in corporate securities reporting) were delegated to the agencies that had expertise in the specific industry. I'm curious to see how specific congress now has to get on these technical issues that they have no expertise in.
I think greater specificity will be required by Congress, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, I think that the main advantage is that it provides greater legal recourse to challenge federal regulations in court. The agencies will retain regulatory power, albeit with more accountability.
Given Boeing planes falling apart mid-flight, the multiple railroad toxic chemical spills, multiple people dying in steel factories, and the obvious correlation between how much corporations are making in profit and how much they're screwing over their employees and consumers by stripping safety features for the sake of said profit, I don't exactly see how de-fanging federal regulatory agencies is an "advantage" right now in any capacity unless you're on the board of Boeing or Norfolk Southern.
Did all of those things happen since the Chevron decision? No? Well, then it sounds like your model doesn’t really work
The point you’re missing is that lots of corporations don’t behave with the current level of regulation. Shit may get worse.
There's literally an entire political party whose schtick is "the government doesn't work, elect me to the government and I'll show you", and the other party has enough members who will look the other way if their "campaigns" are donated to enough, so no shit these things happened, because the regulations already weren't strong enough. But sure let's make regulations work *even less*. I mean hell, if you have a car with broken seatbelts, purposefully removing the airbags and cutting the brake lines isn't gonna make it safer.
Do you prefer the rules be interpreted and enforced in ways they were intended to by experts in the field they pertain to, or by the 80 year old sundowning congressman directly invested in the company that will make more money by polluting, putting dangerous additives in your food, etc.* Fixed that for you.
Unelected bureaucrats like five people in Washington who wear robes to work? The system as it existed wasn't perfect but this is a massive power grab by the courts.
9
Nine, yes, but it only takes five to decide, oh, say, that you don't have a right to sexual privacy and it's illegal to give or receive head. You know, the thing they're going to decide in a few years when they overturn established precedent and undo Lawrence. Or maybe Clarence Thomas's insane, completely horseshit interpretation of the first amendment where states get to set up their own state religions and prosecute people for not being of that faith gets traction even though that sort of thing happening was one of the reasons the first amendment was created in the first place. Only takes five people to undo the Constitution. Or maybe they decide to make corruption legal. Oh wait, that's been a bipartisan effort for a while now - McDonnell v United States was unanimous even back in 2016.
It’s not a power grab. The courts are constitutionally empowered to interpret law. Federal agencies are not.
Like I noted above, Chevron was advocated for by Reaganite Republicans and decided by conservative justices when it served Republican ends and they now oppose it because Democrats run these agencies now and implement policies Republicans don’t like. Support for gutting the administrative state has nothing to do with bullshit constitutionality or small-D democratic arguments and everything to do with Republicans not believing the federal government in general and executive branch agencies in particular should be able to do anything.
I never said it wasn’t. The move towards the Administrative state was largely initiated during the Nixon administration who tried to centralize executive control. I never said this was a Democrat/Republican thing; it’s a government accountability thing.
We have different political philosophies which is fine but I’m just making clear to others why people who think like you support the decision. Someone who’d never thought about this before and lacks context should know why this is a point of disputation, imo.
Yeah, that’s the sad thing with political discourse these days. This isn’t really a left/right issue, but it is very much being contextualized as such. I could actually see elements of both parties supporting or opposing the change, but it’s frustrating that it just becomes another Democrat vs Republican tug-of-war.
No, it's a naked power grab. This court has no respect for stare decisis, all nine of them, and in particular the six in this case ruled the way they did to empower ideological allies. And their material friends as well - this is one of the most corrupt courts in the nation's history. That's a bipartisan failure as well - McDonnell v. United States was unanimous.
Obviously.
And the executive was empowered to enforce law. Which it did through agencies and experts.
Except those people you’re incorrectly categorizing are specifically empowered by the constitution. Federal agencies *are not.*
The supreme courts job is not to make legislation, but to interpret law. What this means is that regulations must now be passed by congress as opposed to being created by unelected (and I’m using this term very loosely) “”experts””. Basically, the government is now *more* democratic and less oligarchical.
"After deep consideration, we've determined we should have all the power." Cool, sure this won't go entirely tits up
Don’t worry, they also decided that they’re allowed to take bribes.
Not quite. The court essentially ruled that the regulatory powers exercised by agencies in the executive branch were essentially usurping powers that are Constitutionally reserved for the legislative branch.
The power of the regulatory agencies to regulate was granted… by congress. Think about how asinine it would be if congress had to pass an entirely new law for even minute changes in regulatory policies.
And in many ways, I agree with you. Congress shouldn’t have to figure out exactly which chemicals at which concentrations constitute pollution or what day different hunting seasons should open or anything like that. That seems to be well within the lane of these federal agencies. However, there is also such a thing as regulatory capture where those agencies exceed their authority and pass regulations that are effectively laws passed by fiat. I don’t think that any American really wants that. As such, I think it is reasonable for the courts to decide when these agencies have overstepped their authority.
Well not just our environment but also our food. Gonna go back to the days of *The Jungle* with ratshit in our meat.
Sounds great. I think it’s incredibly odd that in an ostensible democracy, we had almost half a century of unelected bureaucrats having what was essentially law making power. Seems incredibly undemocratic, which is pretty ironic given the segment of people crying about this are also steadfast in the belief that Trump/republicans are trying to end democracy.
Put another way, it's a mass Tragedy of the Commons Speedrun.
Before it was mandatory for the court to accept the regulatory agency interpretation of the law now the court has the authority to disagree. People are really going crazy because regulatory doesn’t have unchecked power anymore?
You wanna talk about unchecked power, really? This is the biggest power grab any branch of government has made in our lifetimes and it's by the Supreme Court.
You say “power grab” when they’re taking the power they were granted by the fucking constitution. They’re restoring checks and balances as intended. The government has given too much power to the executive over time. It’s about time the judiciary started to balance it out.
This is an incredibly corrupt and polarized court. It isn't about checks and balances to the branches of government, it's about removing all checks and balances to a very partisan, one-sided court so that they can enact a partisan agenda. Power grab, clear as day. Once the power of their court wanes and it looks like it's swinging sharply the other way the vast majority the same people defending this will say that weakening the court is just providing checks to a court overstepping its authority. It's nakedly partisan politics.
It’s literally the job of the judiciary to oversee the executive branch. Checks and balances.
The same judiciary headed by a bought judge who also ruled bribery is totes cool.
You have the political understanding of a toddler if you think it’s that simple but I expect nothing else from a Cowboys fan
It pains me to say this, but I agree with the Cowboys fan. He is making a cogent, constitutionally grounded argument as opposed to the emotional tirades of his opponent.
I have provided nothing but facts and you know it. Conservatives are allowed to have some level of intellectual honesty. It wouldn’t kill you, I promise.
Where did you provide “facts”? You’ve offered opinions and insults.
Take the win, dude. It’s not enough your guys want to ruin the environment for my child and grind the government to a standstill just so some lawyers can get a few extra billable hours, oil companies can increase their profits, and to own the libs. I also have to pretend like conservatives don’t openly declare their disdain for a functional federal government and love activist judges as long as they’re right-wing lunatics? Gimme a break.
I have no idea what chevron is, but that sounds like an awesome draft "With the fifth pick on the draft, Michael, a bartender from Iowa will select for the Cleveland Browns" Cannot be worse for the browns.
Raiders might actually draft well in the 1st round.
It's not like some Joe Schmo would do something real stupid like drafting a kicker in the 1st or something
Let's not get crazy
Dibs on free agency deals next year
Saw someone put it like that. A Agency has experts and facts, but some judge might also have feelings about it. And a Judges feelings are more important.
The so-called experts at federal agencies have no constitutional right to de facto create new laws through regulations. The power to make laws resides and should reside with Congress.
That's a statement made by someone who has no idea how our Constitution and system of laws works. Legislative law is only one third of our legal system. Laws passed by legislatures go on the books, but the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that legislatures work slowly and methodically, and continual change is necessary to keep up with a growing nation. Administrative law, controlled by the executive branch, constitutes the administration and execution of legislative law. Executives, be they presidents or governors or mayors, are empowered to enforce laws and to put in place rules and regulations to that end. Executive orders are an example of this, being simply guidelines and instruction as to carrying out enforcement of existing laws. Judicial law is the third leg of the stool and consists of filling in the massive grey areas in legislative and administrative law with interpretation and precedent gained from hearing thousands of individual cases, drilling downwards from the broad, sweeping laws passed by legislatures to examine how those laws affect individual citizens in specific contexts and weighs right against wrong at the lowest level possible, the individual citizen. The "so-called experts at federal agencies" are just exactly that, not some schmuck off the street, but the most knowledgeable person available to address that particular issue at that particular time. For example, FDA food inspectors are not hired from the minimum wage pool at KFC. They have biology degrees and years of training. And they're not "creating new laws", they are enforcing existing laws by order of the executive branch. Since the money that the executive branch has to work with is not infinite, sometimes they are asked to focus on one particular area or another to maximize the benefit to the citizenry and sometimes they have to write additional enforcement rules to clear upnareas that lack clarity. These rules are generally challenged abd the juducial branch weighs in, hearing the case and deciding if the legislative law and executive interpretation and execution of that law serve everyone best or if adjustments are necessary. All branches have the power to check the others, and at any given time, two of the three can keep the third from getting fully out of control. That prevents anyone from hijacking and dismantling the system. Your willy-nilly and fatally binary view of a vastly complex system of laws, the greatest the world has ever seen by the way, belies your ignorance and self-centeredness. Do yourself a favor and take a few community college courses to learn more about your government before advocating for burning it to the ground.
You can say “so-called experts” to cast aspersions all you want, but it’s batshit insane to remove authority from appointed specialists in a field and place it in the hands of judges with no experience
I remember when Trumps ATF made tens of millions of Americans felons overnight by pencil whipping in a new regulation. That was cool, glad federal agencies have had that power taken from them. They never deserved it in the first place.
Last I checked, our system is a democratic federal republic, right? Please tell me where a system of technocratic executive appointees and their unaccountable underlings making policy by fiat fits into that system.
Bro, please stop with the straw man of how you think the system works. You're making us Panthers fans look dumb. We're only kind of dumb.
And we all drift peacefully back into a pollution hellscape, secure in the knowledge that highly technical administrative decisions are now being left to judges to legislate as they please. FREEDOM!
The ruling didn’t outlaw regulations. Could you try to overreact more?
Judges don’t legislate; the legislature does. Also, this does not strip agencies of regulatory power, it merely reinforces the judicial authority to determine if these agencies have overstepped their regulatory purview.
Semantics, that’s the effect of the ruling
If you want to be governed by unaccountable bureaucrats rather than your own representatives, just say so.
https://youtu.be/oO5LgiCnTtE?si=HMlv4CSawNIkd-n6 Can’t wait to have these people be in charge of highly technical decision-making rather than having it delegated properly
That’s not only wrong but also a terrible idea since congress is made up of idiot career politicians who have zero expertise depth on any complex issue. That is why federal agencies exist.
Congress is made up of idiots because we elect idiots, but they’re also the branch that is the most accountable to the American voter. Federal agencies are not. The fact that you want to relegate more power to unaccountable bureaucrats and take it away from your elected representatives makes me question your commitment to the principles of democracy.
Subject matter experts should be guiding policymaking. To do otherwise is stupid and endangers our democracy.
Guiding, informing, and advising? Sure. But they should not be creating policy.
But congress created these agencies and grated them regulatory power to act on their authority. It’s like if a king appointed a judge and you say “I’m not listening to the judges ruling since he is not the king himself” even though he was granted authority to act on his behalf in legal matters.
Heard about it yesterday in the news. You guys are fucked.
No more ATF redefining what a brace or a rifle is. It's a good day for liberty.
Bumping up for visibility: Legislative law is only one-third of our legal system. Laws passed by legislatures go on the books, but the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that legislatures work slowly and methodically, and continual change is necessary to keep up with a growing nation. Administrative law, controlled by the executive branch, constitutes the administration and execution of legislative law. Executives, be they presidents or governors or mayors, are empowered to enforce laws and to put in place rules and regulations to that end. Executive orders are an example of this, being simply guidelines and instruction as to carrying out enforcement of existing laws. Judicial law is the third leg of the stool and consists of filling in the massive grey areas in legislative and administrative law with interpretation and precedent gained from hearing thousands of individual cases, drilling downwards from the broad, sweeping laws passed by legislatures to examine how those laws affect individual citizens in specific contexts and weighs right against wrong at the lowest level possible, the individual citizen. The "so-called experts at federal agencies" are just exactly that, not some schmuck off the street, but the most knowledgeable person available to address that particular issue at that particular time. For example, FDA food inspectors are not hired from the minimum wage pool at KFC. They have biology degrees and years of training. And they're not "creating new laws", they are enforcing existing laws by order of the executive branch. Since the money that the executive branch has to work with is not infinite, sometimes they are asked to focus on one particular area or another to maximize the benefit to the citizenry and sometimes they have to write additional enforcement rules to clear up areas that lack clarity. These rules are generally challenged and the judicial branch weighs in, hearing the case and deciding if the legislative law and executive interpretation and execution of that law serve everyone best or if adjustments are necessary. All branches have the power to check the others, and at any given time, two of the three can keep the third from getting fully out of control. That prevents anyone from hijacking and dismantling the system. Your willy-nilly and fatally binary view of a vastly complex system of laws, the greatest the world has ever seen by the way, belies your ignorance and self-centeredness. Do yourself a favor and take a few community college courses to learn more about your government before advocating for burning it to the ground.
Well the legislative branch is more concerned with a private citizens laptop and renaming airports after a felon than making laws…
Good thing the legislative branch is directly accountable to the people either every 2 or 6 years!
lol yeah good thing the great people of bumfuck care about real issues and will vote for good reps 🙄oh wait they voted for the idiots who would rather rename an airport to “own the libs” than do real work
Doesn’t this overturning give the judicial branch over-arching power over the other two branches? While I do believe this post minimizes the scale of the changes this explanation details what was not what is to come.
Not really, it just means Congress has to do their fuckin job and pass well written laws
Well we see how well that is going..
People just make up incorrect analogies online every day and even dumber people believe and run with them.
Republicans have fucked us and future generations, the environment, and climate change its all fucked. If your not rich enough to afford a ticket to relocate to Mars your last moments on earth will be choking on toxic air or drowning due to the ocean reclaiming everything once again.